-
#300 by Star One on 14 May, 2020 11:10
-
EM Drive gets a mention in this recent news article from TASS.
https://tass.com/science/1155305?fbclid=IwAR1NxospZGk4oMG94qUXSV3KitaDqoLiQwdyj_SjCacTRakWFbZy6UTwmsI -
#301 by Mark7777777 on 14 May, 2020 12:01
-
EM Drive gets a mention in this recent news article from TASS.
https://tass.com/science/1155305?fbclid=IwAR1NxospZGk4oMG94qUXSV3KitaDqoLiQwdyj_SjCacTRakWFbZy6UTwmsI
The article mentions current spacecraft speeds are around 1/1000 of a percent of the speed of light. Slightly off topic, but if speed was increased to say 0.1c, would a speck of space dust hitting such a craft obliterate it?
Update: Looks like that was already discussed at:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3757314/Space-dust-travelling-20-speed-light-erode-interstellar-craft-way-Alpha-Centauri-Breakthrough-Starshot-tests-reveal.html -
#302 by DamianM on 15 May, 2020 17:22
-
UCL Lecture: The Technologies of Hope - Roger Shawyer
-
#303 by trm14 on 15 May, 2020 20:55
-
With nothing else to do, I watched the lecture. It's the same non-sense as we've seen from Shawyer before. The mystery is why a respectable university like UCL gives a platform for this kind of drivel.
-
#304 by flux_capacitor on 18 May, 2020 14:58
-
With nothing else to do, I watched the lecture. It's the same non-sense as we've seen from Shawyer before. The mystery is why a respectable university like UCL gives a platform for this kind of drivel.
I disagree. It's not the same as before, it's more and more into the most unrealistic sci-fi far-fetched future (now with spherical flying cars and flying cities) and less and less in experimental results. Actually, absolutely ZERO experimental result. -
#305 by trm14 on 18 May, 2020 16:36
-
With nothing else to do, I watched the lecture. It's the same non-sense as we've seen from Shawyer before. The mystery is why a respectable university like UCL gives a platform for this kind of drivel.
I disagree. It's not the same as before, it's more and more into the most unrealistic sci-fi far-fetched future (now with spherical flying cars and flying cities) and less and less in experimental results. Actually, absolutely ZERO experimental result.
Ok, there were things I hadn't actually heard from Shawyer before, such as the compulsory "Big Oil suppressing the Truth" conspiracy. I should have said that there was nothing new of substance. -
#306 by moreno7798 on 21 May, 2020 15:09
-
With nothing else to do, I watched the lecture. It's the same non-sense as we've seen from Shawyer before. The mystery is why a respectable university like UCL gives a platform for this kind of drivel.
I disagree. It's not the same as before, it's more and more into the most unrealistic sci-fi far-fetched future (now with spherical flying cars and flying cities) and less and less in experimental results. Actually, absolutely ZERO experimental result.
Ok, there were things I hadn't actually heard from Shawyer before, such as the compulsory "Big Oil suppressing the Truth" conspiracy. I should have said that there was nothing new of substance.
Why would UCLA post this? What do they know that you do not? Clearly we're not implying there are morons working @ UCLA that have escaped the rigors of employment verification. -
#307 by meberbs on 21 May, 2020 15:37
-
Why would UCLA post this? What do they know that you do not? Clearly we're not implying there are morons working @ UCLA that have escaped the rigors of employment verification.
First of all, UCL and UCLA are different.
Second, no one with technical knowledge at all would make it 2 minutes into the video before realizing that it is complete B.S. (seriously, he still claims "no breaking conservation of momentum" and "propellantless thrust" on the same slide. It is trivial to show these are incompatible. Start: nothing is moving, momentum is 0, End: something is moving in one direction and nothing is moving in the opposite direction, total momentum is not 0.) Whether this video exists because Shawyer tricked some administrative person who doesn't have a technical background, or someone simply failed to spend 5 minutes doing research to realize that Shawyer simply has nothing of value to share, and can't even get the simplest of physics right isn't really important. -
#308 by demofsky on 22 May, 2020 07:35
-
Quick summary of the French EmDrive (pre)testing in the second paper available at http://www.jpier.org/PIERC/pierc98/20.19090507.pdf:
One issue I have with this setup is the lack of EM shielding to protect the electronic scale. I have not read the paper so I may be missing something. -
#309 by demofsky on 22 May, 2020 07:54
-
Without revisiting various conversations below between Meberbs and Alex-O they did remind me of a real cautionary tale where a most eminent professor of physics from Harvard denounced the whole concept of human space travel as physically impossible since the energy required to place an human in orbit would turn the human into the consistency of strawberry jam.
He was completely correct within the boundaries of the problem as he defined it but took to narrow a perspective since rocketry introduced the capability of extending the TIME the energy was released. No new physics or magic required (or jam).
If there is anything to propellantless propulsion it will be due to a creative application of existing laws. Alex_O May have stumbled on to something other than software/modelling artifacts but the challenge here is proving otherwise. -
#310 by demofsky on 22 May, 2020 09:05
-
If rocketry introduced Time (really controlled combustion/propulsion) over the trusty cannon, the whole EM controversy introduced Geometry. Sawyer as a satellite engineer was dealing with anomalous thrust and wondered if it had anything to do with the GEOMETRY of the microwave antennae of the satellite in question and here we are.
Alex_O May have noticed an anomalous phenomena by playing with the Geometry of otherwise very standard software modelling constructs.
But it just hit me like a hammer when I realized that back in the day most microwave horns were square or rectangular (ie truncated pyramid) but not ROUND (conical fustrums)!! I can’t remember off the top of my head how many of Sawyers early experiments used a cavity with flat sides vs truncated cones if any.
Something to consider if anyone feels like doing further experimentation. -
#311 by meberbs on 22 May, 2020 16:16
-
If there is anything to propellantless propulsion it will be due to a creative application of existing laws. Alex_O May have stumbled on to something other than software/modelling artifacts but the challenge here is proving otherwise.
No, unlike the example you cited where someone simply did not think things through, existing physical laws have been proven completely inconsistent with propellantless propulsion.
Alex_O has not actually pointed to a single thing in his sims that is actually demonstrably anomalous.If rocketry introduced Time (really controlled combustion/propulsion) over the trusty cannon, the whole EM controversy introduced Geometry. Sawyer as a satellite engineer was dealing with anomalous thrust and wondered if it had anything to do with the GEOMETRY of the microwave antennae of the satellite in question and here we are.
No, Shawyer introduced nothing but bad math. See my previous post for an example. Square waveguides are often used because linear polarization is what is cared about in most applications. -
#312 by Alex_O on 27 May, 2020 20:51
-
I continue to analyze this simulation, my immediate plan is to build an emdrive simulation with curved bottoms, taking into account the design of the antenna in the resonator. I saw many simulations of a conical resonator, but so far I decided to study curvilinear geometry using a conditional example, from a rectangular waveguide. I also analyzed antennas in different versions (dipole, frame, loop), but I do not use this experience here yet. To reduce artifacts, I performed the calculation with greater accuracy. Here is the result.
1. First, I will show the shape of the pulse. I tried different forms, this form is better.
2. Then I rounded the corners of the waveguide and got a more beautiful result. I want to note that the radiation pressure forces are reflected using arrows on a logarithmic scale (arrow length). There is a difference of three orders of magnitude between the pressure force on the ends and the pressure forces on the straight parts. Therefore, the “arrow” on the straight part is simply not visible at this level of scale.
3. The next step is an analysis of the distribution of fields. We see vectors of electric and magnetic fields.
4. It is clearly seen that in the curve of a part of the waveguide over a time interval of the order of 1-3 ns, there is a very characteristic rotation of the magnetic field vectors. What is not observed in the direct part of the waveguide.
5. The Poynting vector clearly shows the movement of the energy flow, after the curve part we see the precession of the vector at small angles. In the curve part, the Poyting vector shows the "reflection path", we see multiple reflections. It seems that we directly see the trajectory of EM photons in a cavity with any geometry and we see it very well.
6. The calculation of eddy currents provided new visual data. It is also seen here that the vector of the electric field changes its direction sharply. It seems that in the curved part there is a magical place where the electric field "disappears" for a short time.
Note. In the curve part, the effect of delaying the EM pulse for a long 2 ns occurs. This can be very important.
Conclusion.
If in a curved waveguide or in an Emdrive resonator with curved bottoms, due to "new physics" (magic), non-reactive thrust of a rocket occurs, then this happens in the curved part, where there are strong deformations (swirls) of the flow of electromagnetic energy. But to use the effects of new physics (magic) in the design of the resonator, special structural elements must be used. Call it an adapter to the new physics or a special interface. A simple copper case with a polished surface, with physics in the skin layer of micron thickness - this is clearly not enough.
7. I tried to model the adapter to the new physics with the help of Brownian particles. There is a rotation of the magnetic field lines that somehow affect the so-called virtual vacuum particles.
Just an attempt to dream.
==
The numbering of items in this text coincides with the order of the attached gifs. Attached are 7 pictures.
-
#313 by meberbs on 28 May, 2020 06:19
-
I continue to analyze this simulation, my immediate plan is to build an emdrive simulation with curved bottoms, taking into account the design of the antenna in the resonator. I saw many simulations of a conical resonator, but so far I decided to study curvilinear geometry using a conditional example, from a rectangular waveguide. I also analyzed antennas in different versions (dipole, frame, loop), but I do not use this experience here yet. To reduce artifacts, I performed the calculation with greater accuracy. Here is the result.
The emdrive is , by definition from SHawyer who originally did the incorrect math to make the false claim of thrust a conical frustum, other shapes are not in general relevant, and even Shawyer's bad math doesn't predict thrust.1. First, I will show the shape of the pulse. I tried different forms, this form is better.
This statement is meaningless because "better" is simply an undefined concept in this situation. (I could attempt a definition along the lines of "more realistic" but none of your pulses meet this particularly well.)2. Then I rounded the corners of the waveguide and got a more beautiful result.
Again, arbitrary meaningless description.I want to note that the radiation pressure forces are reflected using arrows on a logarithmic scale (arrow length). There is a difference of three orders of magnitude between the pressure force on the ends and the pressure forces on the straight parts. Therefore, the “arrow” on the straight part is simply not visible at this level of scale.
Since you at no point measure or quantify the momentum in the wave, it is similarly meaningless to note the magnitude of the reflection at the end. It is trivially obvious from basic physics that since the waves carry momentum in the direction of motion, an equivalent force is required to be exerted by the waveguides on the waves to revers the direction of motion. This is in no way helpful for propellantless propulsion, because the integrated force will simply balance with the force used to generate the wave to begin with (which is not part of your model.)3. The next step is an analysis of the distribution of fields. We see vectors of electric and magnetic fields.
The actual motion of photons is a bit different, you are dealing with a non-quantum simulation, and all motion is simply the net flow of energy of countless individual photons.
4. It is clearly seen that in the curve of a part of the waveguide over a time interval of the order of 1-3 ns, there is a very characteristic rotation of the magnetic field vectors. What is not observed in the direct part of the waveguide.
5. The Poynting vector clearly shows the movement of the energy flow, after the curve part we see the precession of the vector at small angles. In the curve part, the Poyting vector shows the "reflection path", we see multiple reflections. It seems that we directly see the trajectory of EM photons in a cavity with any geometry and we see it very well.6. The calculation of eddy currents provided new visual data. It is also seen here that the vector of the electric field changes its direction sharply. It seems that in the curved part there is a magical place where the electric field "disappears" for a short time.
The term you are looking for is "interference fringe," and there are much better ways and setups to study it.Note. In the curve part, the effect of delaying the EM pulse for a long 2 ns occurs. This can be very important.
Nothing is being delayed, in all of your simulations the timing seems completely correct for constant velocity motion of the wavefront reaching the end of the path before reflecting.Conclusion.
This conclusion is simply wrong. As I have said before, it is literally logically impossible for ANY result of a simulation of existing physics to produce a result contrary to existing physics. The only options are "you messed up" and "consistent." Your simulation does NOT show anything contrary to existing physics, there is no
If in a curved waveguide or in an Emdrive resonator with curved bottoms, due to "new physics" (magic), non-reactive thrust of a rocket occurs,
non-reactive thrust, you show the equivalent of a ball bouncing off of a wall and demonstrate that upon bouncing the ball exerts a force on the wall. This is not new, interesting or helpful in the context of this thread.then this happens in the curved part, where there are strong deformations (swirls) of the flow of electromagnetic energy.
There aren't "swirls," there are interference effects fro the 2 waves interfering from each other.But to use the effects of new physics (magic) in the design of the resonator, special structural elements must be used. Call it an adapter to the new physics or a special interface. A simple copper case with a polished surface, with physics in the skin layer of micron thickness - this is clearly not enough.
Since there is literally no new physics involves, these statements are simply meaningless.7. I tried to model the adapter to the new physics with the help of Brownian particles. There is a rotation of the magnetic field lines that somehow affect the so-called virtual vacuum particles.
This literally has nothing to do with anything.Just an attempt to dream.
If you want to dream about an imaginary universe, you are in the wrong place. Pleas estop wasting your time by performing pointless simulations and then misrepresenting their results as "new physics." Failing that, please stop wasting other people's time by posting this nonsense here. -
#314 by JohnFornaro on 28 May, 2020 12:38
-
... please stop wasting other people's time by posting this nonsense here.
Second that emotion. -
#315 by goran d on 28 May, 2020 15:39
-
It seems there is a loophole in the Poynting theorem after all. If we take the proof of Poynting theorem, microscopic Maxwell Equation version, it has extra partial time derivative terms for both electric and magnetic component. If we convert those to total derivatives plus extra stuff, the total derivatives "vanish" as the permeability and perminivity are constant. What we are left with, is
v.(1/2) grad (M.B) + v.(1/2) grad (E.P)
where M=magnetization density, P=polarization density
However, according to the Griffiths book the force densities are equal to:
(M.grad)B+(P.grad)E
Which is not equal in case of the AC components in the dielectric insert.
If we have "unbalanced" work proportional to velocity, this is suggestive of a force. -
#316 by meberbs on 28 May, 2020 19:12
-
It seems there is a loophole in the Poynting theorem after all. If we take the proof of Poynting theorem, microscopic Maxwell Equation version, it has extra partial time derivative terms for both electric and magnetic component. If we convert those to total derivatives plus extra stuff, the total derivatives "vanish" as the permeability and perminivity are constant. What we are left with, is
As is a common problem with your posts your first equation is meaningless, because it is not an equation, there is no equals sign. I don't know what it is supposed to be, but it is not Poynting's theorem as you claim, since Poynting's theorem does not involve the polarization or magnetization of a material, and is more general than that working directly with fields charge and current densities:
v.(1/2) grad (M.B) + v.(1/2) grad (E.P)
where M=magnetization density, P=polarization density
However, according to the Griffiths book the force densities are equal to:
(M.grad)B+(P.grad)E
Which is not equal in case of the AC components in the dielectric insert.
If we have "unbalanced" work proportional to velocity, this is suggestive of a force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting%27s_theorem
The second formula you provide has units of force, while the first has units of power. (density technically, since you define M and P to be densities.) These formula are simply describing different things even if they were completely correct.
You don't even have the formula correct though, the force on a magnetic dipole is del (m dot B) not (m dot del) B and these are not in general equal. See Griffiths 3rd ed. equation 6.3 and Problem 6.5 -
#317 by Alex_O on 28 May, 2020 21:50
-
Thank you dear meberbs, I really appreciate that you comment on the messages of all forum participants in such detail and would like to thank you for your great contribution to the discussion of Emdrive problems. Without your detailed discussions, this forum would have been completely different, much worse. Let me answer your comments.I continue to analyze this simulation, my immediate plan is to build an emdrive simulation with curved bottoms, taking into account the design of the antenna in the resonator. I saw many simulations of a conical resonator, but so far I decided to study curvilinear geometry using a conditional example, from a rectangular waveguide. I also analyzed antennas in different versions (dipole, frame, loop), but I do not use this experience here yet. To reduce artifacts, I performed the calculation with greater accuracy. Here is the result.
The emdrive is , by definition from SHawyer who originally did the incorrect math to make the false claim of thrust a conical frustum, other shapes are not in general relevant, and even Shawyer's bad math doesn't predict thrust.
I remember Dr. Rodal's post where he discusses https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1600672#msg1600672Quote2) In great contrast to the Wright Brothers, the explanation by Shawyer goes against all fundamental knowledge of Maxwell's equations and experimental knowledge. There is nobody at a University I know of that agrees with Shawyer's explanations. Nobody at Cambridge University. Nobody at Oxford University. Nobody at MIT, Stanford, CalTech, you name it. Martin Tajmar, at TU Dresden who conducted experiments on the EM Drive under the advice of Shawyer has painstakingly divorced himself from Shawyer's explanations.
I don’t see this as a big problem, since I studied the history of the development of technology, the laws of building technical systems and according to these laws, if we discuss the concept of an ideal space engine for flying to the stars (where there are no stocks of reactive mass - propellant, where the rocket thrust is created for due to some magic), then in this engine - according to the laws of the development of technical systems - in this engine there will be such machine parts:
a) energy source
b) drive (hub, power amplifier
c) the working body - an important part that performs its main function - sets in motion the
spacecraft).
d) control system
e) transmission system
In Emdrive there is point b) a storage device (concentrator, energy amplifier) known as a microwave resonator but there is no point c) of the working body. Therefore, Shawyer's explanations contain a problem, but his explanations are absolutely correct, since the Emdrive thrust directly depends on the quality factor of the microwave resonator. Shawyer ingeniously guessed and confirmed in his experiments that the ideal space engine needs a high-quality microwave resonator.
Note - A microwave cavity is a special case; an ideal spaceship needs a storage device, a concentrator, an energy amplifier.
Next, I quote Dr. Rhodal againQuoteMany things in Shawyer explanation can be shown to be fundamentally wrong, foremost among this the fact that Shawyer persists, to this date, to claim that there is no radiation pressure on the conical side walls. To state, like Shawyer does that there is no radiation pressure on the conical side walls of an electromagnetically resonant truncated conical cavity goes against everything we know from Maxwell's equations. It goes against experimental facts. It goes against calculations from Finite Difference, Finite Element and Boundary Element numerical solutions (FEKO, Meep, COMSOL, etc.) all unequivocally showing that there is radiation pressure on the conical side walls. The complete opposite of the Wright Brothers, who took an experimental approach in conformity with leading knowledge at the time: incorporating the effect of viscosity, and vorticity, from a wind tunnel, to design their wings and propeller. The Wright Brothers concentrated their efforts in preventing flow separation from their wings.
I have a short answer. Shawyer only got Emdrive thrust when he invented the curved bottoms of a conical resonator. Therefore, he rightly believes that the flat side walls of the conical cavity do not help Emdrive to create rocket thrust. According to Shawyer, the side walls are not useful for fulfilling the main function of the working body of an ideal space engine. But without side walls there is no resonator - there is no technical solution for constructing a microwave resonator. The side walls of Shawyer simply interfere, this is the place where heat losses occur, where spurious effects (thermal displacements of the center of mass) occur, like artifacts of traction measurements in the laboratory and general control system settings.
Do you know what that means? That in Emdrive there is a banal technical contradiction. The side walls are needed to create conditions for the accumulation of energy (in the resonator), but the side walls interfere - since they lose energy on the Joule heating.
Bravo Emdrive, Bravo Shawyer - the technical solution to use superconductivity perfectly, successfully resolves the first technical contradiction of Emdrive. There is energy storage, but no energy loss. This is why the whole world is discussing Emdrive like this.
Realizing this, I specifically looked for a design option for the resonator, where the side walls do not harm. (remember the space worm where the thrust (as an idea) is created at the ends?)
In this simulation of a conventional cavity, the lateral (flat walls of the waveguide) absolutely do not harm. You see it yourself on the gif in section 2. This allows you to focus on studying the curvilinear geometry of Emdrive. I will explain this in more detail below.
Here is a very simple explanation, I can show different options for the shape of the pulse. In short - they give a "bad (smeared)" EM pulse that moves along the waveguide. As a result, bad, spurious reflections appear in the curve part.1. First, I will show the shape of the pulse. I tried different forms, this form is better.
This statement is meaningless because "better" is simply an undefined concept in this situation. (I could attempt a definition along the lines of "more realistic" but none of your pulses meet this particularly well.)2. Then I rounded the corners of the waveguide and got a more beautiful result.
Again, arbitrary meaningless description.
I needed curvilinear geometry, and I created an example. In addition, a sharp-edged sim contains artifacts for calculating numerical simulations. Look at the diagram for calculating the integral (surface integral) radiation pressure forces on the waveguide body as a whole. We see quality smooth curves. There seems to be an incomprehensible thing in this diagram. I will explain now. This is the total force that acts on the inner surface of the waveguide from the EM field. This does not create the Emdrav rocket thrust in any way. But it seems to me (this should be discussed separately) - this diagram is very useful for monitoring, for tuning the system and should be used to create the correct settings in a laboratory experiment. (for example, I changed the pulse duration so as to be closer to the resonance frequencies of this geometry at different modes, the pulse duration strongly affects the dynamic distribution of EM fields in the curve of the waveguide, which became a microwave resonator in another sim.
Moreover, I immediately put forward an assumption, an important remark - that without this diagram it would not be possible to find the very correct Emdrive geometry, and most importantly, this is the main criterion for setting up a laboratory experiment. I can explain this in more detail.
Fine. I quote Dr. Rodal again.I want to note that the radiation pressure forces are reflected using arrows on a logarithmic scale (arrow length). There is a difference of three orders of magnitude between the pressure force on the ends and the pressure forces on the straight parts. Therefore, the “arrow” on the straight part is simply not visible at this level of scale.
Since you at no point measure or quantify the momentum in the wave, it is similarly meaningless to note the magnitude of the reflection at the end. It is trivially obvious from basic physics that since the waves carry momentum in the direction of motion, an equivalent force is required to be exerted by the waveguides on the waves to revers the direction of motion. This is in no way helpful for propellantless propulsion, because the integrated force will simply balance with the force used to generate the wave to begin with (which is not part of your model.)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1546438#msg1546438
Remember the picture?
QuoteIn this equation of motion, the term m d2x/dt2 is due to the derivative with respect to time of the momentum, and hence it is analogous to the term due to the derivative with respect to time of the Poynting vector. Similarly, the spring term kx is analogous to the term due to the divergence of the stress tensor (using the stress-strain equation).
Dr. Rodal clearly points out errors. I have already shown you that I understand physics and can repeat more. See what Rodal discusses next.QuoteThe force being defined by Trunev and by Yang as just the derivative with respect to time of the Poynting vector is non-zero for a resonant cavity, for the same reason that the inertial force and the spring force are non-zero in a harmonic oscillator: it is due to the fact that energy goes from the electric field (that changes harmonically with time) to the magnetic field (that also changes harmonically with time but is out of phase) and vice-versa. In a harmonic oscillator, one has kinetic energy going into potential energy and vice-versa (with no movement of the center of mass). For steady-state oscillations, as shown by Greg Egan, Maxwell's equation's solution shows that the cyclic time average of the derivative with respect to time of the Poynting vector and the cyclic time average of the divergence of the stress tensor are both zero.
I don’t know how to say it right, in the end I just did
However, for the transient problem of the EM Drive (not discussed by Greg Egan in his article), both the Poynting vector field and the stress tensor fields exhibit oscillations around an exponentially decaying growth with respect to time. Thus, under transient radio-frequency excitation of a resonant cavity, the cyclic time-average of the Poynting vector field will not be zero. This does not mean that there is a net force on the center of mass that can be explained by Maxwell's equations (or by Yang-Mills equations, which also satisfy conservation of momentum). Rather, this force due to the time derivative of the Poynting vector changing exponentially with time is perfectly balanced by the force due to the divergence of the stress tensor, and vice-versa.
a) used a non-harmonic signal; there are no harmonic oscillators in the sim. Eventually
"the cyclic average time of the Poynting field will not be zero.
And what’s next - I don’t understand anymore, Dr. Rodal uses speech circulationQuoteRather, this force due to the time derivative of the Poynting vector changing exponentially with time is perfectly balanced by the force due to the divergence of the stress tensor, and vice-versa.
I can add to this a description of the old idea that the forces of electrodynamics work no faster than the speed of light, that if it is possible to realize rapid changes in the forces of radiation pressure in the curved part of the waveguide, then the zero balance will be destroyed. But this is not the most important thing, it is somehow not very interesting, it gives a small effect.
I agree. But I saw bad pictures in a cavity with antennas and thought about the task of ray tracing in order to find out and adjust the correct geometry. Just a thought.3. The next step is an analysis of the distribution of fields. We see vectors of electric and magnetic fields.
The actual motion of photons is a bit different, you are dealing with a non-quantum simulation, and all motion is simply the net flow of energy of countless individual photons.
4. It is clearly seen that in the curve of a part of the waveguide over a time interval of the order of 1-3 ns, there is a very characteristic rotation of the magnetic field vectors. What is not observed in the direct part of the waveguide.
5. The Poynting vector clearly shows the movement of the energy flow, after the curve part we see the precession of the vector at small angles. In the curve part, the Poyting vector shows the "reflection path", we see multiple reflections. It seems that we directly see the trajectory of EM photons in a cavity with any geometry and we see it very well.
The interference is understandable, here the question is what is sharp and fast. I used the term sharply, which I understand as a term as a jerk. I saw in various scientific articles a discussion of the concept of a jerk, for example, for laboratory generation of gravitational waves or for changing the inertial mass.6. The calculation of eddy currents provided new visual data. It is also seen here that the vector of the electric field changes its direction sharply. It seems that in the curved part there is a magical place where the electric field "disappears" for a short time.
The term you are looking for is "interference fringe," and there are much better ways and setups to study it.
Therefore, I ask a special question whether there is a jerk or a quick change in the EM field in space applications that is useful in the term. If so, Emdray should be a special working body of the machine, which creates a sharp jerk.
I also thought to add the “plus and minus” and make it so that in the crooked knee - EM impulse banallo could not create the force of radiation pressure on the curved walls. So I came up with a tricky (unipolar) impulse. Is that a good idea?
I will show what is delayed there by a separate post, with pictures.Note. In the curve part, the effect of delaying the EM pulse for a long 2 ns occurs. This can be very important.
Nothing is being delayed, in all of your simulations the timing seems completely correct for constant velocity motion of the wavefront reaching the end of the path before reflecting.
You did not understand my conclusion. The sim is built according to the rules of well-known physics and cannot contradict it. A completely different question was asked - WHERE there may be (in Emdrive) a place for the manifestation of physical effects from New Physics. Where does new physics live in Emdrive?Conclusion.
This conclusion is simply wrong. As I have said before, it is literally logically impossible for ANY result of a simulation of existing physics to produce a result contrary to existing physics. The only options are "you messed up" and "consistent." Your simulation does NOT show anything contrary to existing physics, there is no
If in a curved waveguide or in an Emdrive resonator with curved bottoms, due to "new physics" (magic), non-reactive thrust of a rocket occurs,
non-reactive thrust, you show the equivalent of a ball bouncing off of a wall and demonstrate that upon bouncing the ball exerts a force on the wall. This is not new, interesting or helpful in the context of this thread.
And how these effects can be useful for the purposes of space motion.
I see the rotation of the magnetic field vector in the sim and remember the vortex magnetic field. It is there, and we should discuss this in as much detail as possible.then this happens in the curved part, where there are strong deformations (swirls) of the flow of electromagnetic energy.
There aren't "swirls," there are interference effects fro the 2 waves interfering from each other.
What does it mean no? This means that it must be sought, because without the new physics, Emdrive will not be able to fly to the stars, but will simply crawl like a ding drive. .But to use the effects of new physics (magic) in the design of the resonator, special structural elements must be used. Call it an adapter to the new physics or a special interface. A simple copper case with a polished surface, with physics in the skin layer of micron thickness - this is clearly not enough.
Since there is literally no new physics involves, these statements are simply meaningless.
The sim clearly shows where to look and what to look for. This should be discussed more.
This is a completely new idea, the idea that an ideal space engine needs a special working body, machine, device, adapter or interface to create special physical effects from new physics in the local operational area. This should be discussed and considered as best as possible.7. I tried to model the adapter to the new physics with the help of Brownian particles. There is a rotation of the magnetic field lines that somehow affect the so-called virtual vacuum particles.
This literally has nothing to do with anything.Just an attempt to dream.
If you want to dream about an imaginary universe, you are in the wrong place. Pleas estop wasting your time by performing pointless simulations and then misrepresenting their results as "new physics." Failing that, please stop wasting other people's time by posting this nonsense here.
Dr. White can dream and build simulators of a stream of vacuum plasma, but Alex_O can not do this? I just wanted to show an example concept for an adapter to a new physics and conducted a training experiment in the new sim.
==
Sorry for the big post.
-
#318 by meberbs on 29 May, 2020 01:08
-
Let me answer your comments.
You then follow this by wasting time by not addressing my comments, quoting Rodal, and not addressing his comments either. (And the flattery before this comes off as insincere at best since you did not actually listen to anything I said, particularly the part about not wasting my or your time.)... In this simulation of a conventional cavity, the lateral (flat walls of the waveguide) absolutely do not harm. You see it yourself on the gif in section 2. This allows you to focus on studying the curvilinear geometry of Emdrive. I will explain this in more detail below.
Everything before this point is simply wrong you quote messages explaining how everything that Shawyer has stated technically is flat out wrong, and then you build off of these incorrect statements with further statements that don't even follow any kind of actual logic.
Here is a very simple explanation, I can show different options for the shape of the pulse. In short - they give a "bad (smeared)" EM pulse that moves along the waveguide. As a result, bad, spurious reflections appear in the curve part.[/quote]1. First, I will show the shape of the pulse. I tried different forms, this form is better.
This statement is meaningless because "better" is simply an undefined concept in this situation. (I could attempt a definition along the lines of "more realistic" but none of your pulses meet this particularly well.)
In other words you don't understand the frequency dependence of waveguide propagation, or how to describe a pulse in terms of its frequency content, so you used trial and error. Again, there are better ways to learn these concepts. You are wasting time by deliberately ignoring them.
Actually, finite elements inherently can handle corners, but curves are dependent on your mesh resolution, so again, you aren't making any sense, and rounding some corners does not mean you have "curvlinear geometry" which would imply the entire thing is curved. Also, you are again missing the entire point of my statement. The rest of this part of your post is just more nonsense, some of which indicates again that you don't understand the frequency properties of a pulse in a waveguide.2. Then I rounded the corners of the waveguide and got a more beautiful result.
Again, arbitrary meaningless description.
I needed curvilinear geometry, and I created an example. In addition, a sharp-edged sim contains artifacts for calculating numerical simulations.Moreover, I immediately put forward an assumption, an important remark - that without this diagram it would not be possible to find the very correct Emdrive geometry, and most importantly, this is the main criterion for setting up a laboratory experiment. I can explain this in more detail.
In other words, you are assuming that your sim and geometry is special without evidence and for no reason.
Your quote from him does absolutely nothing to address what I said. Quoting him out of context like this only further demonstrates that you do not actually understand the subject at all. Again, please stop wasting time with this.Since you at no point measure or quantify the momentum in the wave, it is similarly meaningless to note the magnitude of the reflection at the end. It is trivially obvious from basic physics that since the waves carry momentum in the direction of motion, an equivalent force is required to be exerted by the waveguides on the waves to revers the direction of motion. This is in no way helpful for propellantless propulsion, because the integrated force will simply balance with the force used to generate the wave to begin with (which is not part of your model.)
Fine. I quote Dr. Rodal again.
...
Dr. Rodal clearly points out errors. I have already shown you that I understand physics and can repeat more. See what Rodal discusses next.I don’t know how to say it right, in the end I just did
All he is saying there amounts to the simple fact that you can not get any better electromagnetic based drive than a photon rocket no matter what convoluted scheme you come up with, and nothing at all if you don't emit electromagnetic waves.
a) used a non-harmonic signal; there are no harmonic oscillators in the sim. Eventually
"the cyclic average time of the Poynting field will not be zero.
And what’s next - I don’t understand anymore, Dr. Rodal uses speech circulationQuoteRather, this force due to the time derivative of the Poynting vector changing exponentially with time is perfectly balanced by the force due to the divergence of the stress tensor, and vice-versa.
I can add to this a description of the old idea that the forces of electrodynamics work no faster than the speed of light, that if it is possible to realize rapid changes in the forces of radiation pressure in the curved part of the waveguide, then the zero balance will be destroyed. But this is not the most important thing, it is somehow not very interesting, it gives a small effect.
NOTHING travels faster than the speed of light, you can't get around this, and before you ask, no, pre-placing things to happen in a pattern triggered with a time delay still won't change the results.
No, you still don't understand what I said, and there is no way to explain it any simpler in a succinct fashion, your statements here again demonstrate that you don't know the first thing about waveguide propagation.The actual motion of photons is a bit different, you are dealing with a non-quantum simulation, and all motion is simply the net flow of energy of countless individual photons.
I agree. But I saw bad pictures in a cavity with antennas and thought about the task of ray tracing in order to find out and adjust the correct geometry. Just a thought.
Cutting the rest of this off for brevity, the words that come after this are complete gibberish that have absolutely nothing to do with what I said.The term you are looking for is "interference fringe," and there are much better ways and setups to study it.
The interference is understandable, here the question is what is sharp and fast. ...
Please don't waste your time, you are simply wrong, the only point in you doing such a thing would be so that I can explain in more detail exactly why you are wrong, but since you clearly would not listen, there is no point in either of us wasting our time.
I will show what is delayed there by a separate post, with pictures.Note. In the curve part, the effect of delaying the EM pulse for a long 2 ns occurs. This can be very important.
Nothing is being delayed, in all of your simulations the timing seems completely correct for constant velocity motion of the wavefront reaching the end of the path before reflecting.
This is false, you concluded that new physics occurs with no evidence other than your simulation (see bolded statement above.) If you are instead saying that you agree that your simulation cannot produce results that show an emDrive working, than what you are saying is that your entire post was a giant waste of time and you know it. A question is not a conclusion, a conclusion is a statement, often one that answers a question, and as you state here, you simulation is incapable of answering the question you just posed. (The answer to you question is simple by the way: No, there is simply no room in this universe for the possibility of a working emDrive.)
You did not understand my conclusion. The sim is built according to the rules of well-known physics and cannot contradict it. A completely different question was asked - WHERE there may be (in Emdrive) a place for the manifestation of physical effects from New Physics. Where does new physics live in Emdrive?Conclusion.
This conclusion is simply wrong. As I have said before, it is literally logically impossible for ANY result of a simulation of existing physics to produce a result contrary to existing physics. The only options are "you messed up" and "consistent." Your simulation does NOT show anything contrary to existing physics, there is no
If in a curved waveguide or in an Emdrive resonator with curved bottoms, due to "new physics" (magic), non-reactive thrust of a rocket occurs,
non-reactive thrust, you show the equivalent of a ball bouncing off of a wall and demonstrate that upon bouncing the ball exerts a force on the wall. This is not new, interesting or helpful in the context of this thread.
And how these effects can be useful for the purposes of space motion.I see the rotation of the magnetic field vector in the sim and remember the vortex magnetic field. It is there, and we should discuss this in as much detail as possible.
In other words, you don't know what you are looking at. It is pointless to try to explain this to you as there are probably dozens of other things that you would need to learn first, and you have demonstrated no willingness to learn any of them.
No means no. The emDrive does not work. Experiments have demonstrated this. You literally just agreed with the statement that the sim cannot possibly show where to look, and now you are falsely asserting that it does so.Since there is literally no new physics involves, these statements are simply meaningless.
What does it mean no? This means that it must be sought, because without the new physics, Emdrive will not be able to fly to the stars, but will simply crawl like a ding drive. . The sim clearly shows where to look and what to look for. This should be discussed more.
See my previous statement. This entire thing is unrelated, and shows nothing related to any of the things you just said.
This is a completely new idea, the idea that an ideal space engine needs a special working body, machine, device, adapter or interface to create special physical effects from new physics in the local operational area. This should be discussed and considered as best as possible.7. I tried to model the adapter to the new physics with the help of Brownian particles. There is a rotation of the magnetic field lines that somehow affect the so-called virtual vacuum particles.
This literally has nothing to do with anything.
Do not insult him by comparing what you have done here with what he did. He at least appeared to make an honest attempt to study new physics. You have done nothing of the sort, just misrepresenting the results of a simulation that has absolutely nothing to do with new physics.If you want to dream about an imaginary universe, you are in the wrong place. Pleas estop wasting your time by performing pointless simulations and then misrepresenting their results as "new physics." Failing that, please stop wasting other people's time by posting this nonsense here.
Dr. White can dream and build simulators of a stream of vacuum plasma, but Alex_O can not do this?I just wanted to show an example concept for an adapter to a new physics and conducted a training experiment in the new sim.
The simulation is literally incapable of doing any of the things claim here. As you just stated: "The sim is built according to the rules of well-known physics and cannot contradict it." -
#319 by zubenelgenubi on 29 May, 2020 02:31
-
I created a new thread, Yuri's experiment, for Yuri's experiment.
The sim clearly shows where to look and what to look for. This should be discussed more.